A neophyte shottist's exploration and exercise.... Read by dozens daily

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Pop Vote

I had an anonymous commenter go on about the National Popular Vote movement.

No.

Not just no, hell no.

I hate the sentiment. We need MORE federalism in this country, not less. I don't want 51% of the country deciding it's ok to pee the Cheerios of the other 49%. We are not a Democracy, nor do we want to be. We are a Federal Republic. Full stop. We haven't been vigilant enough the past 100 years or so opposing inroads by the Tyranny of the Masses and that has given us problems today without piling on more. Were it to pass, the coasts would call the shots on presidential elections. You want Presidents that New York and California agree on? Well I can see that, because NY and CA are example of prudent gov't that we should all emulate... /sarcasm

If you want to be a Democracy have a Constitutional Convention and tear up the current system and then fight that Civil War after. Have the courage of your convictions. Stop trying to the change the rules of the game just because you are losing and people aren't doing what you think they should be doing. Maybe what they are doing is their bidness and not yours.

Another reason to distrust it? Maryland signed onto the nonsense as an early adopter. I bet Jimmy Carter likes the policy too.

The only reason it's had any traction is because Gore lost in 2010. And some people foolishly wanted to actually win. If Gore had prevailed can you IMAGINE the Mad Max style wasteland this country would be at this point?

A huge favor by the incoming Tea Party state legislatures would be repealing this in purple states that already passed it.

Main reason they're pushing this nonsense is to get their Acorn-Rigged, Ballot- Box Stuffing, Hanging- Chad, Write-in -a -Scribble System Sheeple Voting for Hopeless Change in an effort to ensure they can vote in a President-for-Life Commie. They must be really scared about when the Census sends out the results and they see they lost some Electoral Votes and there are a bunch of Red States that can prevent their March to the End of History when they build their Socialist Utopia.

Oh, typo: Gore gave up in 2000 after the Supremes said you can have a recount, but you have to recount ALL the votes, including Military Absentee Ballots. SCOTUS never ruled that Bush won. Hate that myth, especially since the Ruling is out there for anyone to download.

Had this very discussion with a co-worker last week. I give her full marks for listening to my arguments. I had my pocket Constitution with me (Doesn't everyone?) and could back up my arguments with the text. While she still favors "Majority Rule" she now knows it is unconstitutional.

State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes were eventually enacted by 48 states AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.

In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.

The winner-take-all rule is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district -- a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.

National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a "democracy."

A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a "republican" form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).

If a "republican" form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a "democratic" method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.

I'm sorry, Anon. Al Gore is not coming back to be your President. Everything you say is a feature of Pop vote is not, and everything you say against a federal republic that is a minus is actually a big plus.

Good Advice

"You never select a shotgun as your primary anti-zombie firearm. It's great for onesy twosey, but zombies travel in hordes. The reload time is onerous, and the ammo, while effective, is heavy and bulky and short ranged."

Big Mistake for Her

If Ginsberg had let Scalia put the words "strict scrutiny" in Heller and Hillary said "Gun control is just not going to be a priority for my administration," Hillary would have been elected President.

About Me

Preamble

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.